[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 RFC 4203
CCAMP Working Group K. Kompella (Juniper Networks)
Internet Draft Y. Rekhter (Juniper Networks)
Expiration Date: October 2002 A. Banerjee (Calient Networks)
J. Drake (Calient Networks)
G. Bernstein (Ciena)
D. Fedyk (Nortel Networks)
E. Mannie (GTS Network)
D. Saha (Tellium)
V. Sharma (Metanoia, Inc.)
OSPF Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt
1. Status of this Memo
This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with
all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.''
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt [Page 1]
Internet Draftdraft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt April 2002
2. Abstract
This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing
protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS). The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS-
ROUTING].
3. Summary for Sub-IP Area
3.1. Summary
This document specifies encoding of extensions to the OSPF routing
protocol in support of Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
(GMPLS). The description of the extensions is specified in [GMPLS-
ROUTING].
3.2. Where does it fit in the Picture of the Sub-IP Work
This work fits squarely in either the CCAMP or OSPF box.
3.3. Why is it Targeted at this WG
This draft is targeted at the CCAMP or the OSPF WG, because this
draft specifies the extensions to the OSPF routing protocols in
support of GMPLS, because GMPLS is within the scope of the CCAMP WG,
and because OSPF is within the scope of the OSPF WG.
3.4. Justification
The WG should consider this document as it specifies the extensions
to the OSPF routing protocols in support of GMPLS.
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt [Page 2]
Internet Draftdraft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt April 2002
4. Introduction
This document specifies extensions to the OSPF routing protocol in
support of carrying link state information for Generalized Multi-
Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS). The set of required enhancements to
OSPF are outlined in [GMPLS-ROUTING].
5. OSPF Routing Enhancements
In this section we define the enhancements to the TE properties of
GMPLS TE links that can be announced in OSPF TE LSAs. The Traffic
Engineering (TE) LSA, which is an opaque LSA with area flooding scope
[OSPF-TE], has only one top-level Type/Length/Value (TLV) triplet and
has one or more nested sub-TLVs for extensibility. The top-level TLV
can take one of two values (1) Router Address or (2) Link. In this
document, we enhance the sub-TLVs for the Link TLV in support of
GMPLS. Specifically, we add the following sub-TLVs to the Link TLV:
1. Link Local Identifier,
2. Link Remote Identifier,
3. Link Protection Type,
4. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor, and
5. Shared Risk Link Group.
The following defines the Type and Length of these sub-TLVs:
Sub-TLV Type Length Name
11 4 Link Local Identifier
12 4 Link Remote Identifier
14 4 Link Protection Type
15 variable Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
16 variable Shared Risk Link Group
5.1. Link Local Identifier
A Link Local Identifier is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with type 11,
and length 4.
5.2. Link Remote Identifier
A Link Remote Identifier is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with type 12,
and length 4.
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt [Page 3]
Internet Draftdraft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt April 2002
5.3. Link Protection Type
The Link Protection Type is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV, with type 14,
and length of four octets, the first of which is a bit vector
describing the protection capabilities of the link. They are:
0x01 Extra Traffic
0x02 Unprotected
0x04 Shared
0x08 Dedicated 1:1
0x10 Dedicated 1+1
0x20 Enhanced
0x40 Reserved
0x80 Reserved
5.4. Shared Risk Link Group (SRLG)
The SRLG is a sub-TLV of the Link TLV with type 16. The length is the
length of the list in octets. The value is an unordered list of 32
bit numbers that are the SRLGs that the link belongs to. The format
of the value field is as shown below:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| ............ |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Shared Risk Link Group Value |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt [Page 4]
Internet Draftdraft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt April 2002
5.5. Interface Switching Capability Descriptor
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor is a sub-TLV of the
Link TLV with type 15. The length is the length of value field in
octets. The format of the value field is as shown below:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Cap | Encoding | Reserved |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 3 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 5 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 6 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Max LSP Bandwidth at priority 7 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Switching Capability-specific information |
| (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Switching Capability (Switching Cap) field contains one of the
following values:
1 Packet-Switch Capable-1 (PSC-1)
2 Packet-Switch Capable-2 (PSC-2)
3 Packet-Switch Capable-3 (PSC-3)
4 Packet-Switch Capable-4 (PSC-4)
51 Layer-2 Switch Capable (L2SC)
100 Time-Division-Multiplex Capable (TDM)
150 Lambda-Switch Capable (LSC)
200 Fiber-Switch Capable (FSC)
The Encoding field contains one of the values specified in Section
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt [Page 5]
Internet Draftdraft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt April 2002
3.1.1 of [GMPLS-SIG].
Maximum LSP Bandwidth is encoded as a list of eight 4 octet fields in
the IEEE floating point format, with priority 0 first and priority 7
last. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second.
The content of the Switching Capability specific information field
depends on the value of the Switching Capability field.
When the Switching Capability field is PSC-1, PSC-2, PSC-3, or PSC-4,
the specific information includes Interface MTU, Minimum LSP
Bandwidth, and padding. The Interface MTU is encoded as a 2 octets
integer. The Minimum LSP Bandwidth is is encoded in a 4 octets field
in the IEEE floating point format. The units are bytes (not bits!)
per second. The padding is 2 octets, and is used to make the
Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV 32-bits aligned.
When the Switching Capability field is L2SC, there is no specific
information.
When the Switching Capability field is TDM, the specific information
includes Minimum LSP Bandwidth, an indication whether the interface
supports Standard or Arbitrary SONET/SDH, and padding. The Minimum
LSP Bandwidth is encoded in a 4 octets field in the IEEE floating
point format. The units are bytes (not bits!) per second. The
indication whether the interface supports Standard or Arbitrary
SONET/SDH is encoded as 1 octet. The value of this octet is 0 if the
interface supports Standard SONET/SDH, and 1 if the interface
supports Arbitrary SONET/SDH. The padding is 3 octets, and is used
to make the Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV 32-bits
aligned.
When the Switching Capability field is LSC, there is no specific
information.
The Interface Switching Capability Descriptor sub-TLV may occur more
than once within the Link TLV.
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt [Page 6]
Internet Draftdraft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt April 2002
6. Implications on Graceful Restart
The restarting node should follow the OSPF restart procedures [OSPF-
RESTART], and the RSVP-TE restart procedures [GMPLS-RSVP].
When a restarting node is going to originate its TE LSAs, the TE LSAs
containing Link TLV should be originated with 0 unreserved bandwidth,
and if the Link has LSC or FSC as its Switching Capability then also
with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth, until the node is able to determine the
amount of unreserved resources taking into account the resources
reserved by the already established LSPs that have been preserved
across the restart. Once the restarting node determines the amount of
unreserved resources, taking into account the resources reserved by
the already established LSPs that have been preserved across the
restart, the node should advertise these resources in its TE LSAs.
In addition in the case of a planned restart prior to restarting, the
restarting node SHOULD originate the TE LSAs containing Link TLV with
0 as unreserved bandwidth, and if the Link has LSC or FSC as its
Switching Capability then also with 0 as Max LSP Bandwidth.
Neighbors of the restarting node should continue advertise the actual
unreserved bandwidth on the TE links from the neighbors to that node.
Regular graceful restart should not be aborted if a TE LSA or TE
topology changes. TE graceful restart need not be aborted if a TE LSA
or TE topology changes.
7. Security Considerations
The sub-TLVs proposed in this document does not raise any new
security concerns.
8. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Suresh Katukam, Jonathan Lang and
Quaizar Vohra for their comments on the draft.
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt [Page 7]
Internet Draftdraft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt April 2002
9. References
[OSPF-TE] Katz, D., Yeung, D., "Traffic Engineering Extensions to
OSPF",
draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-06.txt (work in progress)
[GMPLS-SIG] "Generalized MPLS - Signaling Functional
Description", draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-signaling-04.txt (work
in progress)
[GMPLS-RSVP] "Generalized MPLS Signaling - RSVP-TE Extensions",
draft-ietf-mpls-generalized-rsvp-te-06.txt (work in progress)
[GMPLS-ROUTING] "Routing Extensions in Support of Generalized MPLS",
draft-ietf-ccamp-gmpls-routing-01.txt (work in progress)
[OSPF-RESTART] "Hitless OSPF Restart", draft-ietf-ospf-hitless-
restart-02.txt
(work in progress)
10. Authors' Information
Kireeti Kompella
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: kireeti@juniper.net
Yakov Rekhter
Juniper Networks, Inc.
1194 N. Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Email: yakov@juniper.net
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt [Page 8]
Internet Draftdraft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt April 2002
Ayan Banerjee
Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: +1.408.972.3645
Email: abanerjee@calient.net
John Drake
Calient Networks
5853 Rue Ferrari
San Jose, CA 95138
Phone: (408) 972-3720
Email: jdrake@calient.net
Greg Bernstein
Ciena Corporation
10480 Ridgeview Court
Cupertino, CA 94014
Phone: (408) 366-4713
Email: greg@ciena.com
Don Fedyk
Nortel Networks Corp.
600 Technology Park Drive
Billerica, MA 01821
Phone: +1-978-288-4506
Email: dwfedyk@nortelnetworks.com
Eric Mannie
GTS Network Services
RDI Department, Core Network Technology Group
Terhulpsesteenweg, 6A
1560 Hoeilaart, Belgium
Phone: +32-2-658.56.52
E-mail: eric.mannie@gtsgroup.com
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt [Page 9]
Internet Draftdraft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt April 2002
Debanjan Saha
Tellium Optical Systems
2 Crescent Place
P.O. Box 901
Ocean Port, NJ 07757
Phone: (732) 923-4264
Email: dsaha@tellium.com
Vishal Sharma
Metanoia, Inc.
335 Elan Village Lane, Unit 203
San Jose, CA 95134-2539
Phone: +1 408-943-1794
Email: v.sharma@ieee.org
draft-ietf-ccamp-ospf-gmpls-extensions-05.txt [Page 10]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from
https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/